If some one could clarify Passport Control on out bound flights from England. Are they random checks? Because I have flow out of the LHR and LGW many times back to the States (the last in 05) and have never encountered exit passport control. Though I have seen English exit stamps on a friends passport from a few years ago. Thanks!

It shouldn't cause too many queues really, if the sensors are quick it will only take a few seconds, and given that T5 will be fantastic facilities wise, I think it means LHR will be good again, at least for BA anyway, and who really cares about anyone else

Quoting Jmy007 (Reply 2):If some one could clarify Passport Control on out bound flights from England. Are they random checks? Because I have flow out of the LHR and LGW many times back to the States (the last in 05) and have never encountered exit passport control. Though I have seen English exit stamps on a friends passport from a few years ago. Thanks!

The report says 'every passenger'. Last time i went through T3 there were passport checks just after security but I didn't see them stamping any foreign nationals passport (perhaps someone else could clarify??)

It'll be interesting to see if they bring this in at all terminals once they've been refurbished.

The article doesn't say whether they are deleted afterwards, or not. But I will definitively not give those people my fingerprints, no government has the right to own them, especially not a foreign one.

Heathrow T3...the bane of the international traveller. Passengers transiting through the hell that is T3 only have to wait through a couple of hours of haranguing by the local security boffins whilst wading through discarded water bottles and duty free bags. They don't go through passport control.

The departure lounge at T5 will be common to Domestic and International passengers. To control immigration all Domestic passengers only will be fingerprinted at the boarding pass control before entering the terminal, and again at the boarding gate.

Quoting Jmy007 (Reply 2):If some one could clarify Passport Control on out bound flights from England. Are they random checks? Because I have flow out of the LHR and LGW many times back to the States (the last in 05) and have never encountered exit passport control. Though I have seen English exit stamps on a friends passport from a few years ago. Thanks!

All exit immigration checks at airports (not sure about ports) were scrapped by the government around 10 years ago in an astonishing moment of forward thinking. Since then we have absolutely no idea who has been leaving the country, nor with what documentation, as has been highlighted in the last couple of years due to high profile cases of suspected criminals/terrorists disappearing abroad.

Those controls are now being reinstated, althuogh the government, when announcing this earlier in the year, said it would take 18 months or more to do. Not sure why, maybe they 'sacked' all the original immigration (or should that be, er, emmigration?) officers, and now have to start from scratch. Presumably by the time T5 opens, those checks will be fully in place...

Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 9):Uhm, they already take your photo at LGW before going through security and check it at the gate.

This is done at Manchester T3 too, your pic is taken then a barcode is printed out and stuck to your boarding pass. Before entering the pier the barcode is then scanned, and your identity is verified. I think it was something to do with customs, as the terminal mixes domestic and int pax?

Taking the photograph will be quicker than the desk clerk looking at your passport and/or inspecting the boarding pass when you enter the departures hall, taking the finger prints should not take any longer. With 14 security points at "North Security" in T5 and another 4 (or 6) at "South Security" (as seen on my visit to T5 on the trial today - more info in Trip Reports) it should not cause huge queues. BAA are already timing how long it takes to process the passengers, and there are another six months before T5 opens. If the procedures improve security, then I am all for it.

The BBC has got it wrong. The biometric checks are in place only for domestic passengers in Terminal 5. International passengers will not undergo biometric checks. Similar checks are already in place for domestic flights in various forms at airports across the country.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 12):
All exit immigration checks at airports (not sure about ports) were scrapped by the government around 10 years ago in an astonishing moment of forward thinking. Since then we have absolutely no idea who has been leaving the country, nor with what documentation, as has been highlighted in the last couple of years due to high profile cases of suspected criminals/terrorists disappearing abroad.

Those controls are now being reinstated, althuogh the government, when announcing this earlier in the year, said it would take 18 months or more to do. Not sure why, maybe they 'sacked' all the original immigration (or should that be, er, emmigration?) officers, and now have to start from scratch. Presumably by the time T5 opens, those checks will be fully in place...

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. Also, I have noticed that immigration officials in the UK, (well in LHR) no longer were uniforms, but rather street cloths. Has this changed back?

I have seen it. I am not in a position to get a picture, yet, but I can certainly find one. The say embarked on in and it is triangular in shape. Again, I am not say this is recent, but not in the distance past.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 14):Taking the photograph will be quicker than the desk clerk looking at your passport and/or inspecting the boarding pass when you enter the departures hall, taking the finger prints should not take any longer. With 14 security points at "North Security" in T5 and another 4 (or 6) at "South Security" (as seen on my visit to T5 on the trial today - more info in Trip Reports) it should not cause huge queues. BAA are already timing how long it takes to process the passengers, and there are another six months before T5 opens. If the procedures improve security, then I am all for it.

I work at an airport and travel a lot ( on stand-by damn LHR taxes are so high ) and seeing how stupid and clumsy people act, I cannot see any improvement, but I reserve the right to be corrected! If all these counters are manned I surely see no problem. An increase in security is good but it might get worse as well.

Recently in CDG I got my passport checked 5 times before flying to VIE! Took me 20min including security check. If this can be avoided I am very positive about it.

What if I do not want to have my fingerprints taken? Are there exceptions?

I have seen it. I am not in a position to get a picture, yet, but I can certainly find one. The say embarked on in and it is triangular in shape. Again, I am not say this is recent, but not in the distance past.

Briefly - this will probably only apply to domestic passengers. Incidentially, Manchester had given up photographing domestic passengers when I was last there. As another aside, passport checks for outbound passengers were temporarily re-introduced after the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London.

Quoting DavidT (Reply 13):
This is done at Manchester T3 too, your pic is taken then a barcode is printed out and stuck to your boarding pass. Before entering the pier the barcode is then scanned, and your identity is verified. I think it was something to do with customs, as the terminal mixes domestic and int pax?

Quoting Sfuk (Thread starter):"It's so we can make sure that the person who turns up at the gate is the same one who checked in,"

Well isn't that why they check your passport at check in and then again at the gate?

I travelled from LGW to Jersey a couple of years ago and my photograph was taken at security as to get to the domestic area you need to go through the international departure lounge. When you enter the domestic gate area they scan the barcode stuck onto your ticket and your picture re-appears on a computer. It does say that all information is destroyed within 24hrs.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 26):Well isn't that why they check your passport at check in and then again at the gate?

No need to have your passport on a domestic flight though... as per one of the posts above this is a domestic check - the majority of passengers will be travelling internationally and will not be doing this.

If they want to take finger prints so what . USA do it and everyone has gotten used to it . If someone doesn't want to have their finger print taken they can choose not to use the airport or not to visit the country concerned. If you have nothing to hide there is no problem.

Passport checks for ALL departing passengers should be routine. Anything suspicious in a passengers passport or movements should be entered into a computer and the passenger second screened. The UK's borders have been so lapse over the years that people walk in and out when they please with out detection. I like the idea of Biometric passports and visas also. Bio metric ID cards should also be brought in.

If it stops just one terrorist attack or reduces people that have no right to be in the country then its well worth it .

We live in a very different world these days and ignoring that fact is dangerous .

Quoting Sfuk (Thread starter):
"It's so we can make sure that the person who turns up at the gate is the same one who checked in," Mr Pearman says.

Is this really a problem? It seems to me that we have a solution in search of a problem.

Also, what if you have fingerprints that aren't readable? No flying for you? People get rejected from jobs for this reason (I remember a person was rejected as a teacher because his fingerprints were not defined enough).

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17):Can someone perhaps explain to me why only domestic pax are being fingerprinted, but not international? What exactly is the use of that?

Simple, T5, like LGW has one integrated departures lounge, where both domestic and international passengers mix, unlike some other airports that have seperate departure lounges. Given that domestic passengers do not require passports for travel, the government requires some method of ensuring that those who travel domestically are indeed those that checked in and not just anyone who has walked off an international flight and not cleared UK immigration.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 30):Given that domestic passengers do not require passports for travel, the government requires some method of ensuring that those who travel domestically are indeed those that checked in and not just anyone who has walked off an international flight and not cleared UK immigration.

Do you not have to carry a photo ID on UK domestic flights??? I thought you had to have either a passport or drviving license with a photo in it???

Quoting Thorben (Reply 6):The article doesn't say whether they are deleted afterwards, or not. But I will definitively not give those people my fingerprints, no government has the right to own them, especially not a foreign one.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 31):Do you not have to carry a photo ID on UK domestic flights??? I thought you had to have either a passport or drviving license with a photo in it???

It's normally only the lo-cos that demand photo ID for domestic flights, but then only because they want to check that you are the ticketed passenger and aren't trying to avoid a name change fee! Certainly for BA (never flown bmi), no photo ID is required.

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 33):Quoting Thorben (Reply 6):
The article doesn't say whether they are deleted afterwards, or not. But I will definitively not give those people my fingerprints, no government has the right to own them, especially not a foreign one.

deleted afterwards..don't count on it! welcome to Big Bro'

don't count on me neither.

SO I guess neither of you will be travelling to the USA or Japan (fingerprint and photo on entry being introduced) ? I think it is a process we can get used too and if it helps secure the terminal then so be it. I do recall BAA explaining that the terminal design did not separate domestic and international flights and I believe it is correct that this process is by the airport rather than a UK Immigration policy. BUt I fail to see how it can only apply to domestic passengers if it is to work.

I know the last time I passed through LHR T1 about 4 weeks ago, I was offerred the option, by an immigration official, of using a new biometric machine for arrivng pax, instead of having my passport manually checked. I turned the offer down.

I'm not too happy to have this type of info stored. Next they'll be asking for a DNA sample.

Quoting Jmy007 (Reply 16):Also, I have noticed that immigration officials in the UK, (well in LHR) no longer were uniforms, but rather street cloths. Has this changed back?

Quoting Hornetfan (Reply 18):I have one in my passport for my last visit to the UK, as does my wife admitedly it was around 5 years ago.

Sorry, let me clarify better. I was referring to the OP's description of 'English' exit stamps when I said no such thing......they are United Kingdom departure stamps (many erronously seem to think England and the UK are the same entity).

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 30):Simple, T5, like LGW has one integrated departures lounge, where both domestic and international passengers mix, unlike some other airports that have seperate departure lounges. Given that domestic passengers do not require passports for travel, the government requires some method of ensuring that those who travel domestically are indeed those that checked in and not just anyone who has walked off an international flight and not cleared UK immigration.

Ah right!! That makes sense now......guess I was looking at it from a broader perspective. Many thanks!

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 30):
Simple, T5, like LGW has one integrated departures lounge, where both domestic and international passengers mix, unlike some other airports that have seperate departure lounges. Given that domestic passengers do not require passports for travel, the government requires some method of ensuring that those who travel domestically are indeed those that checked in and not just anyone who has walked off an international flight and not cleared UK immigration.

Wait a sec... arriving international pax will mix into the departure area before clearing immigration & customs? How does immigration know which pax to screen?

If it's just departing pax that mix, then who cares? Make the airlines enforce the ID/passport requirements. A lot of countries (the US comes to mind) penalize airlines that deliver pax w/o appropriate documents.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 6):The article doesn't say whether they are deleted afterwards, or not. But I will definitively not give those people my fingerprints, no government has the right to own them, especially not a foreign one.

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 20):What if I do not want to have my fingerprints taken? Are there exceptions?

Quoting Babybus (Reply 36):I know the last time I passed through LHR T1 about 4 weeks ago, I was offerred the option, by an immigration official, of using a new biometric machine for arrivng pax, instead of having my passport manually checked. I turned the offer down.

I'm not too happy to have this type of info stored. Next they'll be asking for a DNA sample.

What's all the fuss about fingerprints? If you're a criminal, a fingerprint scan could prove problematic. However, for the regular average Joe traveler with nothing to hide there's no problem. And...if it speed things up then by all means, install more fingerprinting stations and snap away with the cameras! For all those worried about their precious fingerprints, remember this...unless you perpetually wear thick gloves, you leave fingerprints on all sorts of items in all sorts of places practically all of the time. If "Big Brother" wants your fingerprints, "Big Brother" will get them, period. So smile for the camera, put your finger on the scanner and enjoy a speedier trip through the airport. Thank you for choosing LHR.

Quoting Analog (Reply 41):Wait a sec... arriving international pax will mix into the departure area before clearing immigration & customs? How does immigration know which pax to screen?

If it's just departing pax that mix, then who cares? Make the airlines enforce the ID/passport requirements. A lot of countries (the US comes to mind) penalize airlines that deliver pax w/o appropriate documents.

As stated many times in this thread.....there are no passport requirements for domestic passengers. Also, we are discussing the departures lounge....nothing to do with arriving passengers.

Quoting AAgent (Reply 42):What's all the fuss about fingerprints? If you're a criminal, a fingerprint scan could prove problematic. However, for the regular average Joe traveler with nothing to hide there's no problem.

That logic can be extended to random searches of homes, cars, your person... I'm very suspicious of any "if you've got nothing to hide" argument. Whether or not one's fingerprints are a valid concern with regard to privacy, etc. they are something personal that has historically only been taken of criminals [& suspects, plus as part of criminal background checks for "critical" jobs]. I am not, as a rule, opposed to taking fingerprints from everybody, but this kind of expansion of a government's eyes should be looked upon with great skepticism. A flawed terminal design (mixing of pax) does not count as good reason.

Quoting AAgent (Reply 42):So smile for the camera, put your finger on the scanner and enjoy a speedier trip through the airport. Thank you for choosing LHR.

The process could be made even speedier by eliminating the finger scanning and photography.

You might believe that, but the data are showing strong decreases in tourism to the US, particularly from Western Europe.

The US-VISIT program undoubtedly has had a significant role to play in this decrease, which is nearly unfathomable considering how weak the dollar is.

The fact is, while you might be comfortable with it, many travelers all over the world are not comfortable with being, essentially, booked for arrest, upon entry to a country.

Does US-VISIT contribute to good security? Arguably not. Since there's been a decrease in civil liberty conscious but "low risk" Western European travelers the US has had to increase tourism from other countries--for instance, by reducing the barriers of entry to the visa waiver program. We are arguably trading low risk tourists for higher risks ones.

Quoting Analog (Reply 44):That logic can be extended to random searches of homes, cars, your person... I'm very suspicious of any "if you've got nothing to hide" argument. Whether or not one's fingerprints are a valid concern with regard to privacy, etc. they are something personal that has historically only been taken of criminals [& suspects, plus as part of criminal background checks for "critical" jobs]. I am not, as a rule, opposed to taking fingerprints from everybody, but this kind of expansion of a government's eyes should be looked upon with great skepticism. A flawed terminal design (mixing of pax) does not count as good reason.

I don't really buy into the whole slippery slope kind of argument where you suggest "that logic can be extended to random searches of homes, cars, your person", etc. Conversely, I see it as a very clear cut issue. When entering or exiting any country, the people of that country have the right to know at least a few very important things about you. Are you a person with a clean or "good" history, or are you a verifiable "bad" person with an unsavory backlog of criminal activity. Therefore, an excellent first question would be... "Who are you?" Once identified and determined to be of no threat, fingerprint scanning and a photograph empower the airport personnel to confirm your identity quickly and assist you on your journey through the airport. Quite simple...and conspiracy free.

By the way, even Walt Disney World and Sea World use biometric scanning to identify annual pass holders. So it must be true, people can be scanned and still have a wonderful day!

Quoting AAgent (Reply 46):Once identified and determined to be of no threat, fingerprint scanning and a photograph empower the airport personnel to confirm your identity quickly and assist you on your journey through the airport. Quite simple...and conspiracy free.

There's a lot of naivete regarding security issues, and I think this is one of those topics. Immigration documentation can be used for the purpose you state, but it doesn't scale worth a damn. The idea that we can separate good guys versus bad guys with passports, fingerprints and photographs is nearly criminally insane, particularly when you're talking about hundreds of millions of people (the quantity of people who cross national borders on a frequent basis.)

There's nothing that's more damaging to this country's security than a belief that a security set-up works when it really doesn't. The idea of using immigration documentation to separate good versus bad doesn't work in either theory or practice--the numbers are simply too big. It is, nevertheless, believed by many.

At least however, people have become less naive. I'm told the reason why passports became mandatory travel documents, during World War I, was to prevent espionage--apparently the thinking was that passports would keep out spies.

Quoting AAgent (Reply 42):What's all the fuss about fingerprints? If you're a criminal, a fingerprint scan could prove problematic. However, for the regular average Joe traveler with nothing to hide there's no problem. And...if it speed things up then by all means, install more fingerprinting stations and snap away with the cameras! For all those worried about their precious fingerprints, remember this...unless you perpetually wear thick gloves, you leave fingerprints on all sorts of items in all sorts of places practically all of the time. If "Big Brother" wants your fingerprints, "Big Brother" will get them, period. So smile for the camera, put your finger on the scanner and enjoy a speedier trip through the airport. Thank you for choosing LHR.

I am not a criminal, so they have no right to treat me that way. I know it is possible to get my fingerprints, but it should be illegal. Violation of privacy rights requires a certain based reason, and the fact that a person travels through LHR is certainly not reason enough.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 45):You might believe that, but the data are showing strong decreases in tourism to the US, particularly from Western Europe.

Maybe its for other reasons because from the UK and Ireland its un real the amount of people going to the USA in the next 8 weeks . The exchange rate of $1.41 to 1 Euro has seen a huge demand for shopping trips. The number of people I know going to New York to shop is amazing. Even people who would not have considered it a few years back. The last time I was in Bloomingdales it was all English and European tourists shopping. They are giving international visitors 11% discount cards which makes it even more attractive.

Maybe when they see the figures for October thru January it will balance itself out. Maybe people are waiting for the sales also.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 50):Maybe its for other reasons because from the UK and Ireland its un real the amount of people going to the USA in the next 8 weeks . The exchange rate of $1.41 to 1 Euro has seen a huge demand for shopping trips. The number of people I know going to New York to shop is amazing. Even people who would not have considered it a few years back. The last time I was in Bloomingdales it was all English and European tourists shopping. They are giving international visitors 11% discount cards which makes it even more attractive.

Maybe when they see the figures for October thru January it will balance itself out. Maybe people are waiting for the sales also.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 49):I am not a criminal, so they have no right to treat me that way. I know it is possible to get my fingerprints, but it should be illegal. Violation of privacy rights requires a certain based reason, and the fact that a person travels through LHR is certainly not reason enough.

I have no problems going through LHR and having my fingerprints scanned or my picture taken. I even feel better.
And I wish the UK would never join Schengen where there are no checks at all between countries whcih it makes it very difficult to track criminals.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 31):Do you not have to carry a photo ID on UK domestic flights??? I thought you had to have either a passport or drviving license with a photo in it???

Quoting Bwaflyer (Reply 34):It's normally only the lo-cos that demand photo ID for domestic flights, but then only because they want to check that you are the ticketed passenger and aren't trying to avoid a name change fee! Certainly for BA (never flown bmi), no photo ID is required.

The only time I've ever had to produce photo ID on a domestic flight is when checking in luggage. Otherwise there is NEVER a photo ID check in my experience of flying BD and BA. If for example a friend couldn't use a ticket of his from say LHR-MAN I wouldn't be at all worried about using it myself as I know I wouldn't get caught out.

This is to stop the 1 in a million chance of another person showing up for boarding, or catching a criminal. A small chance and it won't happen that often, but when it does people will be glad it is in place. Photo/fingerprint check isn't what is going to cause long queues, it's the ridiculous liquid ban stuff that the TSA come up with.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 50):The exchange rate of $1.41 to 1 Euro has seen a huge demand for shopping trips.

I don't doubt it. People will do a balancing act--under normal circumstances they might not be willing to undergo the American Welcome, but might be willing to endure it if the price is cheap enough.

But still tourism is overall down, and international conventions are down sharply. Between the visa hassles and US-VISIT it's just not productive or wise to do conferences and conventions in the US, when you're going to have a lot of people coming in from abroad. Canada is going through a boom.

Quoting AAgent (Reply 42):What's all the fuss about fingerprints? If you're a criminal, a fingerprint scan could prove problematic. However, for the regular average Joe traveler with nothing to hide there's no problem. And...if it speed things up then by all means, install more fingerprinting stations and snap away with the cameras! For all those worried about their precious fingerprints, remember this...unless you perpetually wear thick gloves, you leave fingerprints on all sorts of items in all sorts of places practically all of the time. If "Big Brother" wants your fingerprints, "Big Brother" will get them, period. So smile for the camera, put your finger on the scanner and enjoy a speedier trip through the airport. Thank you for choosing LHR.

i totally see your point AAgent, it's just that it's not me the criminal, why should i give my finger prints to governments that
often act like CRIMINALS! see my point?

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 52):I have no problems going through LHR and having my fingerprints scanned or my picture taken. I even feel better.
And I wish the UK would never join Schengen where there are no checks at all between countries whcih it makes it very difficult to track criminals.

if it's the reason you're begging to get scanned, you must ba as paranoiak as uk-us paranos' seing every single "no-normal" person as a potential "moving mine" or a freeloader.. be straight, hold firm on your life and your dollars, and again no-worry guys, our brave army makes sure every potentially dangerous child let's say..arab, dark or just poor..will be taken care of even before they enter our borders.. just look at holly war in Irak, guantanamo.. i don't call this security, do you? and it's just about to begin.

Yes, it is. Though you might not do it yourself, people do swap boarding cards and pull various scams to get places they would not otherwise get to. If more places worldwide did this, a lot of very persistent problems would be solved. It also takes the onus off the gate staff to check faces against documents, something they often do woefully simply becaue it's not their main concern and time is of the essence. This is a very good move.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 12):Those controls are now being reinstated, althuogh the government, when announcing this earlier in the year, said it would take 18 months or more to do. Not sure why,

Because of a huge rise in passenger numbers, more issues to deal with than ever, and enhanced checks being carried out on a blanket basis.

Quoting Jmy007 (Reply 16):Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. Also, I have noticed that immigration officials in the UK, (well in LHR) no longer were uniforms, but rather street cloths. Has this changed back?

Yes - uniforms have been introduced this year. You say 'no longer' - in fact, immigration OFFICERS (not 'officials') never wore uniforms in the UK.

Quoting Hornetfan (Reply 18):I have one in my passport for my last visit to the UK, as does my wife admitedly it was around 5 years ago.

No you don't, not from five years ago - ALL embark controls were abolished long before.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 52):
I have no problems going through LHR and having my fingerprints scanned or my picture taken. I even feel better.

Security should not be about making you FEEL better. It should be about making things more secure. I do not want to start giving up my freedoms and submit to fingerprinting, photography, searches, probes, or anything else just so that you, or anyone else, can feel better.

Quoting ANother (Reply 61):
If domestic and international departures are mixed, how will connecting passengers do it?

More importantly, if arriving pax are mixed, how does HM Customs know who to search?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 62):If more places worldwide did this, a lot of very persistent problems would be solved.

I believe this thinking to be a bit naive. The processes of immigration are simply too complex to erect one barrier and then assume that it will be sufficient to stop people.

If someone is out to do something bad, they will try multiple times, they will try it in different ways. For you to be right people would have to try one thing and give up immediately. (I fear a lot of people who work in security believe that however.)

Every immigration barrier creates new loopholes and opportunities. That's just the nature of security. Security is its own trade-off. The human mind is quite clever and creative when faced with an obstacle.

I don't know if any of you have flown out of terminal 3 receently, but there is a passport check depending on the time of the day u are travelling; after you pass the security bag check/scan. After you pass this check there is then the take off your shoes and put them thru the machine check.

I too am opposed to this additional check. I'm amazed what we are beginning to accept in the name of "freedom from terroist acts". Here comes the police state.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 65):I believe this thinking to be a bit naive. The processes of immigration are simply too complex to erect one barrier and then assume that it will be sufficient to stop people.

Well no, I don't mean it to sound as though I think it will cure all immigration problems, it clearly won't. I merely mean that it will help with certain issues - nothing naive about that, I know what I'm talking about, it's everyday business for me.

Of course, all of us have "nothing to hide". But we shouldn't take democracy and human rights for granted, and if all this surveillance stuff gets into the hands of a less democratic government, we would define "nothig to hide" in another way. That's why I'm not very fond of this "nothing to hide"-attitude. It's OK as long as the political situation is stable, but history has told another story.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 6):The article doesn't say whether they are deleted afterwards, or not. But I will definitively not give those people my fingerprints, no government has the right to own them, especially not a foreign one.

No one is owning your fingerprints, just an image of them. Do you object to people having pictures of you?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 49):I am not a criminal, so they have no right to treat me that way. I know it is possible to get my fingerprints, but it should be illegal. Violation of privacy rights requires a certain based reason, and the fact that a person travels through LHR is certainly not reason enough.

Recording fingerprints is not an invasion of privacy. Fingerprints are an external identifier, useful in biometric security systems for validating the identity of someone. They are used in computer security systems as an adjunct to passwords. They are used to aid matching newborns with mothers, in case of kidnapping or mixup in the newborn nursery. For passports, the goal is to make it more difficult to use stolen or fraudulent documents.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 45):Does US-VISIT contribute to good security? Arguably not. Since there's been a decrease in civil liberty conscious but "low risk" Western European travelers the US has had to increase tourism from other countries--for instance, by reducing the barriers of entry to the visa waiver program. We are arguably trading low risk tourists for higher risks ones.

The problem is there is a high risk population within Western Europe. They have been responsible for attacks in the Europe, US and elsewhere.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 65):Every immigration barrier creates new loopholes and opportunities. That's just the nature of security. Security is its own trade-off. The human mind is quite clever and creative when faced with an obstacle.

Nonsense, new barriers don't create new loopholes or opportunities if existing barriers are maintained. They force those looking to evade capture or illegally enter to try existing loopholes that are more difficult to exploit.

Going back to the very beginning of this topic, it does on reflection sound rather heavyhanded to solve the issue of controlling (the identity of) domestic passengers by implementing an entire fingerprinting & photographing system, solely for that purpose (if we are to believe that it is solely for that purpose).

It would be much cheaper and easier to simply insist that all domestic passengers must have photo-id of an approved kind, and leave it at that. It works with the lo-cost airlines, and in other countries, and we might just get used to it. Why go to such expensive and elaborate ends to just make sure that domestic passengers are who they say they are, unless of course there really is more to this than we are being told...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 69):
Recording fingerprints is not an invasion of privacy. Fingerprints are an external identifier, useful in biometric security systems for validating the identity of someone. They are used in computer security systems as an adjunct to passwords. They are used to aid matching newborns with mothers, in case of kidnapping or mixup in the newborn nursery. For passports, the goal is to make it more difficult to use stolen or fraudulent documents.

The fact that "recording fingerprints is not an invasion of privacy" does not make taking fingerprints a totally benign act. Keep in mind that the fingerprints are not being taken to prevent the use of "stolen or fraudulent" passports. The whole motivation for LHRT5's recording of fingerprints is to compensate for the terminal's design, which seems to have been optimized for revenue generation (everyone can go to every store) and to relieve BA of its job to verify that pax meet documentation requirements for international travel.

I really feel sorry for people whose fingerprints don't scan well. Enjoy the red boxevery time you fly.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 62):people do swap boarding cards and pull various scams to get places they would not otherwise get to.

It's the airline's job to make sure that people going to Country X have the valid documents when they board the aircraft. Swapping boarding cards cannot get around this type of verification.

Quoting Analog (Reply 71):It's the airline's job to make sure that people going to Country X have the valid documents when they board the aircraft. Swapping boarding cards cannot get around this type of verification.

.....about which, you will find, I also talked. Yes it's their responsibility, still hapens though.

Quoting Analog (Reply 71):Swapping boarding cards cannot get around this type of verification

1) Yes it can - airline staff are not immigration officers and often don't check properly anyway.
2) Other documents can be used to match a swap post checkin.
3) Don't tell me it 'cannnot get around this type of verification' - it happens, people do it, and on a very persistent basis.

Quoting ANother (Reply 61):Int'l to Int'l, I assume will have no UK formalities, what about In'tl to Domestic and Domestic to In'tl?

Int'l to Int'l pax have no need to clear UK immigration and simply connect directly into the departures area, same for domestic to int'l. Pax going from international to domestic will (I believe) undergo immigration in the connections area and then proceed up to departures. This will be determined by the immigration service and not BA or BAA.

Quoting Analog (Reply 71):The whole motivation for LHRT5's recording of fingerprints is to compensate for the terminal's design, which seems to have been optimized for revenue generation (everyone can go to every store) and to relieve BA of its job to verify that pax meet documentation requirements for international travel.

BA is in no way relieved of the requirement to verify travel documents for international passengers and must still ensure that all passengers boarding and international flight has the correct documents to do so. This system is only for domestic flights and so has no effect on international flights. Further, even if it did apply, it is still the airline's responsibility to ensure that passengers have the correct documents for the country they are being transported to.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 49):I am not a criminal, so they have no right to treat me that way. I know it is possible to get my fingerprints, but it should be illegal. Violation of privacy rights requires a certain based reason, and the fact that a person travels through LHR is certainly not reason enough.

Thank-you Thorben. We are not all criminals until proven innocent by security. Governments do not have right to invade our privacy and take fingerprints etc.
All and any power any government has comes from us, the people, and it's time to take it back.

There are better ways of detecting terrorists than fingerprinting 900 trillion people per year. Its more important to find bombs and weapons.

Plus, what do they do with all this information? Its a waste to collect it. And, it means nothing if they can't find bombs or weapons, because there are some people who are not in the fingerprint system who would blow planes if they could.

Don't be so stupid and disrespectful as to compare the holocaust to this situation. Get a grip.

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 75):We are not all criminals until proven innocent by security. Governments do not have right to invade our privacy and take fingerprints etc.
All and any power any government has comes from us, the people, and it's time to take it back.

Sure, and then be the first to whine when things go wrong and say 'why wasn't anything done?'
If you're not going to take reponsibility and contribute to EVERYONE'S security, then don't fly. Or, if you're not prepared to cooperate with specific controls in the UK, then don't come here.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 76):Don't be so stupid and disrespectful as to compare the holocaust to this situation. Get a grip

Its exactly like the rise of the Nazis and fascism, ( I did not mention the holocaust ) , and you are trying top put words in my mouth; I was speaking of authoritarian fascist governments,and therefore I stand by my statement.

Civil liberties, rights to privacy and other freedoms are not abolished all at once. They erode because the population is not vigilant. We must not be sheep and simply accept every extreme thing governments try to do in the name of terrorism. Better a few planes go down than the population of the world be tattooed with bar-codes and RFID and monitored 24/7 , so someday an evil terrorist doesn't sneak on to a plane.

It's clearly not, although I guess that depends on how much of a paranoid conspiracy theorist you are. In the context of this thread, using technology to ensure that the person that checks in is the person that boards, you're talking hysterical nonsense.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 76):If you're not going to take reponsibility and contribute to EVERYONE'S security, then don't fly. Or, if you're not prepared to cooperate with specific controls in the UK, then don't come here.

Oh please. If you read the article you'll see that this is nothing to do with counter-terorism, or national/international security, but merely a very lazy and expensive way of making up for a failure to provide seggregation of domestic & internatonal passengers.

We should all be very concerned when a private organisation (such as BAA) implements a process that requires the collection as such sensitive information as fingerprints merely for tracking the movements of its customers. It's nothing to do with immigration, and quite frankly the immigration service (on behalf of the government - or vice versa) should be taking BAA aside and compelling them to find a more sensible and less sinister solution to what is a very simple and commercial problem.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 81):Odd that you think our immigration authorities should "...be taking BAA aside" when you state that it has nothing to do with immigration.

...because they are being 'used' to provide a control process that is nothing to do with immigration!

Domestic passengers are of no interest to the immigration service, it is only because of the layout of T5 that these passengers are required to pass through passport control, even though thay are not leaving the country. The government/immigration service should be saying to BAA "It's not our business - arrange your facilities properly."

The really interesting question is why the immigration service (on behalf of the government, for whom they work) have agreed to do this at all... It's perfectly reasonable to suspect the government of maybe having some other 'use' for the data that is being collected. Just because we are told that it will be thrown away doesn't actually mean that it will be. Now to assume that really would be naive!

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 82):The government/immigration service should be saying to BAA "It's not our business - arrange your facilities properly."

Well, I would agree with you there - the Border and Immigration Agency (Immigration Service as was) should certainly be telling BAA to arrange their facilities properly, as indeed they should have been doing for many years now.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 82):The really interesting question is why the immigration service (on behalf of the government, for whom they work) have agreed to do this at all.

They probably had little say in the matter. Ridiculous I know, but airports have long since been able to get away with murder when it comes to sorting out decent facilities and arrangements for the various control authorities to do their jobs properly.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 69):Recording fingerprints is not an invasion of privacy.

What is and what is not an invasion of privacy is a personal belief. There is no one person who can decide what it is and is not an invasion because that is decided by the person himself.

Between 1977 and 1982, California requested but did not require fingerprints in order to get a California driving license. The refusal rate was about 20%. West Virginia, since the late 1990s has a similar policy, and it also had a refusal rate of 20% (I believe it's gone up.) Clearly, you can safely assume that 20% of Americans have decided that fingerprinting is an invasion of their privacy--whether it's logical or illogical, or whether you hold that belief or not, is irrelevant. 20% is not an insignificant value. (And for what it's worth, Georgia had mandatory driver's license fingerprinting established in 1996. The public outcry brought it down finally in 2006, and the prints were destroyed.)

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 69):The problem is there is a high risk population within Western Europe. They have been responsible for attacks in the Europe, US and elsewhere.

That's true, of course, but that's not how immigration policies generally treat things. If we feel that all foreigners are equally high risk, then we shouldn't have the visa waiver program.

That is also true, but I suggest it's rare, particularly at a macro scale. There is only so much time and resources for an immigration department, and more often than not, those policy changes end up taking out other security policies.

At the macro level, policies may hypothetically be added on to and existing barriers maintained, but at the micro level expediencies may take over instead. How often do we hear of people being forced to have a really difficult password and perhaps change it often, and just writing that password down on a post it note?

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 77):Civil liberties, rights to privacy and other freedoms are not abolished all at once. They erode because the population is not vigilant. We must not be sheep and simply accept every extreme thing governments try to do in the name of terrorism. Better a few planes go down than the population of the world be tattooed with bar-codes and RFID and monitored 24/7 , so someday an evil terrorist doesn't sneak on to a plane.

i totally agree. population living out of fear become weak sheep, media keep us busy with terrorists coming out of mysterious caves, you become suspicious and antipatriot if you question the system, unpolite.. before we had communism, now we "found" terrorism. we don't have dreams anymore. in the mean time we lose the liberty to think, to live different, in the mean time 10'000 children die every day out of hunger, in the mean time we destroy your natural resources in the name of profit of the holly dollar, comdamning the next generations to live miserably, in such a way that it is arlready impossible to repair, within 50 years your planet won't have the same face anymore.. and you will think i'm a "childish ecologist", lets meet in 50 years if you think time is money.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 26):Well isn't that why they check your passport at check in and then again at the gate?

In theory, but it's too easy to beat the system.

Pax A shows passport and checks-in. Pax A then hands boarding pass to Pax B who has forged passport in the same name as Pax A. Pax B goes through security and immigration. At the gate the boarding pass and passport match, but it's a different pax!

It seems that this thread has again been hijacked by folks who havent read the informed responses. SO lets spell it out:

1. This is not UK Immigration requirement
2. The photos are NOT part of immigration control
3. The T5 design does not separate domestic and International flights (in many airports these are in separate terminals requiring bus transfers, including LHR today!). By doing this it is able to offer a more efficient and passenger friendly transfer experience for domestic connections, something we should be applauding
4. No passport required for UK domestic travel
5. So there is a theoretical security risk that 2 passengers could colldue to swap places after check in and immigration, albeit they would still have secondary passport checks at the boarding gate. The domestic passengers photo will appear at the boarding gate when he boards for the agent to confirm he is the person who checked in. (!)

At most major airports around the world your photo is being taken at some point by security CCTV, who folow you around the terminal if yopu display any form of unusual or suspect behaviour. I dont see the harm of a photo if checking in at T5 for a domestic flight.

It is an airport process, been used at MAN and LGW before and frankly adds no time at all to the process.

As for those of you who have seized this as the start of the rise of fascism in the UK, get a life. You should remember that in the UK we subjects of the crown do NOT have to carry any form of identification with us, we in fact dont have any form of photo identity card (other than newer driving licences).

Oh and jus to finish off, every ride I have taken at Disney or Universal takes my photo then tries to sell it to me. What happens to THOSE photos?.......(joke, please dont start discussing this!!)

The ones that want to leave the airport rather than getting on a plane?

What about arriving international pax? Are they not screened by immigration at all?

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 74):BA is in no way relieved of the requirement to verify travel documents for international passengers and must still ensure that all passengers boarding and international flight has the correct documents to do so. This system is only for domestic flights and so has no effect on international flights.

So departing international pax do not have to be fingerprinted? How will this work?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 81):
Odd that you think our immigration authorities should "...be taking BAA aside" when you state that it has nothing to do with immigration.

Pax A shows passport and checks-in. Pax A then hands boarding pass to Pax B who has forged passport in the same name as Pax A. Pax B goes through security and immigration. At the gate the boarding pass and passport match, but it's a different pax!

All bets are off if we're talking about forged documents that pass muster at security/immigration (and, by implication, at the check in counter). At this point there is no need for Pax A to be present at all, and the fingerprint system does nothing.

Quoting Analog (Reply 92):What about arriving international pax? Are they not screened by immigration at all?

This thread was about departing passengers......any arriving passengers who are landing in London, will undergo immigration as per normal.

Quoting Analog (Reply 92):So departing international pax do not have to be fingerprinted? How will this work?

There is no need to, as departing international passengers have to present some form of photo id/passport at the gate, as per usual. Biometrics are required for domestic passengers simply because there is no need for photo id/passport.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 93):
There is no need to, as departing international passengers have to present some form of photo id/passport at the gate, as per usual. Biometrics are required for domestic passengers simply because there is no need for photo id/passport.

This makes no sense to me. If documents are checked at the gate for international flights, then is the fingerprinting for revenue control? If there is no ID needed at all, then what does the fingerprint do for domestic flights, since pax B can checkin using pax A's ticket from the get go?

As far as arriving international pax, previous posts had led me to believe that they'd be mixed into the terminal before immigration.

How will international transfer w/o visa work? How will international pax changing aircraft be prevented from leaving the airport, or is the UK going to a US-style all transit pax must enter the US policy?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 91):Extremely rarely - it's way more likely you would be showing your passport to the Police.

I fly frequently and I can tell the difference between a policeman and an immigration officer. There have been immigration controls in place at LHR for departing pax at least 5 or 6 times this year (and those are just the times when I've flown).

Quoting Mutu (Reply 89):At most major airports around the world your photo is being taken at some point by security CCTV, who folow you around the terminal if yopu display any form of unusual or suspect behaviour. I dont see the harm of a photo if checking in at T5 for a domestic flight.It is an airport process, been used at MAN and LGW before and frankly adds no time at all to the process.

You seem to have completely overlooked the issue that is causing most concern, which is the fingerprinting of domestic passengers. Whatever you might think, this is not a standard airport process for domestic passengers in any country as far as I know.

Frankly it's rather naive to suggest that it is a good thing as it allows all passengers to mix airside. People who design & build airport terminals elsewhere seem to have managed this 'problem' well enough, so it doesn't appear unreasonable to expect BAA to be able to achieve the same thing. Instead of which they opt to shove the responsibility of controlling domestic passengers onto those manning the outward immigration checks, and those who manage the gate boarding process, funnily enough neither of which are likely to be BAA staff!

It does nothing to resolve the issue of faked ID, as no such ID is required for domestic flights, so if you have a ticket for Mr Smith, then that is presumably the name that will be attached to your biometric data, regardless of who you really are. If this data is purely for internal passenger control, as they say it is, then they will have no way of verifying that your name is not Mr Smith.

Presumably, inward passengers connecting from an international flight to a domestic one will have to got through the same biometric registration process at the point when they pass through security, in order to ensure that all passengers boarding a domestic flight are recognised by the biometrics system.

Domestic passengers connecting to an international flight would presumably still have to go through security (to gain access to a sterile area - the daparture lounge), but would have only their passport checked, as biometric data would not be required.

It's going to be interesting how they plan to manage the seggregation of arriving passengers - i.e. those from domestic flights who have no connection, have an international connection, or - less likely - a domestic connection, and those international arrivals with no connection, domsetic connection, or international connection, with all the different controls to be applied. Sounds like a real mess to me, but I'll be a guinea-pig for the system in a few weeks' time, so I'll be able to see how it works from the passenger viewpoint, and report back.

None of this really excuses the decision to collect biometric data when it is specifically not for any kind of (inter)national security purpose, but merely a commercial customer management one. It is very much a precedent in that sense, and one that we should be concerned enough about to expect due scrutiny and transparency. We are not talking about the security services here, after all, but a privately owned transportation company.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 96):
None of this really excuses the decision to collect biometric data when it is specifically not for any kind of (inter)national security purpose, but merely a commercial customer management one. It is very much a precedent in that sense, and one that we should be concerned enough about to expect due scrutiny and transparency. We are not talking about the security services here, after all, but a privately owned transportation company.

You typed much of what I've been too lazy to write out...

Have the Brits made some sort of communal decision to destroy air travel (the fees, the absurd carry-on restrictions, this...)?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 95):I fly frequently and I can tell the difference between a policeman and an immigration officer. There have been immigration controls in place at LHR for departing pax at least 5 or 6 times this year (and those are just the times when I've flown).

Doubt it, I'm not talking about your local bobby - the only visible difference you would have seen (up until the recent introduction of uniforms) would be some tiny writing on the airport pass of the suited individual inspecting your document, something you're not likely to be looking at very closely. I know controls have been mounted on occasion (INVOLVING immigration, key word), but even when they have been , they are still not full embarkation controls in the true sense of the word. Nobody gets stamped or actually 'controlled' - documents are merely inspected. Still, I suppose you know more from the 5 or 6 times you've been looked at in that part of the airport than I do from my 250 or so shifts I've done there in the last year, and the year before that, and the year before that.........etc.

Quoting AAgent (Reply 42):What's all the fuss about fingerprints? If you're a criminal, a fingerprint scan could prove problematic. However, for the regular average Joe traveler with nothing to hide there's no problem.

I have something to hide. It is called PRIVACY.

And since I am not a criminal, nobody has the right to treat me as if I was one.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 52):
I have no problems going through LHR and having my fingerprints scanned or my picture taken. I even feel better.
And I wish the UK would never join Schengen where there are no checks at all between countries whcih it makes it very difficult to track criminals.

Don't forget how high the crime rate in the UK is , despite (or maybe because of) that massive CCTV usage there.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 69):No one is owning your fingerprints, just an image of them. Do you object to people having pictures of you?

I do, especially when it can be linked to CCTV software. And your statement about the fingerprints in not worthy to be answered.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 69):Recording fingerprints is not an invasion of privacy. Fingerprints are an external identifier, useful in biometric security systems for validating the identity of someone. They are used in computer security systems as an adjunct to passwords. They are used to aid matching newborns with mothers, in case of kidnapping or mixup in the newborn nursery. For passports, the goal is to make it more difficult to use stolen or fraudulent documents.

The problem is that with my fingerprints, everything I touch can be seen as touched by me. Worrying when you think about election ballots.

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 75):hank-you Thorben. We are not all criminals until proven innocent by security. Governments do not have right to invade our privacy and take fingerprints etc.
All and any power any government has comes from us, the people, and it's time to take it back.

There are better ways of detecting terrorists than fingerprinting 900 trillion people per year. Its more important to find bombs and weapons.

Plus, what do they do with all this information? Its a waste to collect it. And, it means nothing if they can't find bombs or weapons, because there are some people who are not in the fingerprint system who would blow planes if they could.

Thank you for making some important points. I have no problem with walking through a scanner for explosives or radioactive materials. That I could understand. But obviously one can enter the UK with Polonium 210 in the pocket, and nobody looks for that.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 86):Presumably you are not planning on visiting the US any time soon then?

No. I would go, but not under these circumstances. Same for Japan and the UAE. If they don't want my money - fine.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 99):Don't forget how high the crime rate in the UK is , despite (or maybe because of) that massive CCTV usage there.

A crime rate that would certainly rise were it not for the important border controls currently in place. The crime rate here is too high, and your point about over-reliance on CCTV here is definitely a valid one. It's no replacement for proper policing. However, I don't think the use of CCTV in the scenario under discussion bears comparison to the use of CCTV in terms of the general policing of the country. The principle and purpose is different.

Not really, because it's quite clear there is no secret army of people checking every single ballot paper for prints - a task so futile, expensive and complex as to be laughable in the extreme. There are some serious serious threats to civil liberties to be concerned about - ideas about fingerprints and ballot papers make that cause sound hysterical and therefore undermines its credibility. Let's keep a sense of proportion here.

Indeed. The issue is that passengers who are not necessarily entering or leaving the country are going to be photographed & fingerprinted, not as part of any kind of (inter)national security policy, or to identify 'suspicious' individuals, but simply to manage the boarding of domestic flights! To use such sensitive data in such a flippant way is quite ludicrous. There are much cheaper and simpler ways of doing this.

Remember, until DNA came along, fingerprints were the definitive way of linking suspects to crimes by the police. That's how valuable/useful fingerprints are. Their collection inside and outside of the security services should always be subject to the most rigorous controls in order to prevent their misuse. I need to be convinced that an organisation like BAA takes their responsibility in this matter seriously enough not to 'allow' such data to go 'missing'... ID crime is supposedly the biggest and costliest form of crime economically, and this kind of data can be very valuable in (or should tha be on??) the wrong hands...

Quoting Thorben (Reply 99):And since I am not a criminal, nobody has the right to treat me as if I was one.

This whole thread is an interesting example of how we adapt to conditions in our own countries, often do not understand how those conditions differ in other countries and build our own prejudices up on the basis that our country is right and all others that do things differently are wrong.

Thorben if you go to Belgium you are required by law to carry some form of photographic identity at all times if you are aged 12 or above. If you are a Belgian citizen that identity must be the national identity card

If you go to France things are a little different. The French do have a national identity card but it is not compulsory to have one. However you must carry some form of recognised identity document including a photo at all times.

I know in Germany that there is a ID card system. I do not know if it is a comprehensive system or if a German citizen (or foreign visitor) is required to carry an ID card or, perhaps, some other form of photo identity at all times or under some specific circumstances.

Here in the UK and in some other countries like the USA and Denmark, we have no identity card system. While it is true that recently issued British driving licences include a photo, the British licence is issued when you pass the test and expires on the driver's 70th birthday. So there are literally millions of licences that do not include a picture and will not expire for many years. What is more, unlike most other countries we are not required to carry our driving licence, our insurance certificate or any other documentation when driving a car. (However a police officer can require you to produce this documentation at a police station of your choice within ten days.)

In summary in the UK there is no requirement to carry any documentatiomn of any kind under any circumstances except when you are leaving the country when you must have a passport.

As one requires a passport for international travel the absence of other forms of identification in the UK is not a problem for international passengers. But a universal system is required to cover domestic passengers in the current climate of terrorism.. We Brits prefer the solution of electronic image of both our faces and finger prints that is automatically deleted 24 hours after our flight than that of an identity card. One of the reasons is we know of the huge amount of personal data that could and probably would be permanently stored on a national identity card which would certainly include all the data in a passport plus a lot more.

So I suggest that if you are looking for that freedom from big brother is to come and live in the UK but travel domestically by train not aircraft. We are, afterall, a geographically small country.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 102):The issue is that passengers who are not necessarily entering or leaving the country are going to be photographed & fingerprinted, not as part of any kind of (inter)national security policy, or to identify 'suspicious' individuals, but simply to manage the boarding of domestic flights! To use such sensitive data in such a flippant way is quite ludicrous. There are much cheaper and simpler ways of doing this.

No, the 'issue' I was posting the comment about that you quoted me on was not that one at all - I was writing in response to a specific post which contained hysteria about fingerprints and ballot papers.

However, ensuring beyond doubt that the person that checks in is the right person who boards is very much a security issue, and if you were to try and board a flight you were not supposed to I would certainly consider that to be suspicious.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 104):However, ensuring beyond doubt that the person that checks in is the right person who boards is very much a security issue, and if you were to try and board a flight you were not supposed to I would certainly consider that to be suspicious.

- but why is that more of a security issue than a person buying a (domestic) train ticket, only to decide at the last minute not to travel but to give it to someone else? If the physical security checks at the airport are doing their job, then there is no risk to the aircraft itself, or to the nation at large, so what has 'security' got to do with the passenger's identity?

The only possible justification for this is the control of international connecting passengers, who have not actually entered the country, and therefore are not (or might not) be 'elligible' to travel on a domestic flight. But what a heavyhanded solution, and it goes right back to one of my earlier posts, where I said that the Government and/or the Immigration Service should have told BAA not to allow the mixing of passengers who have not entered the country with those that are not leaving it. That really doesn't make any sense at all, and to require the fingerprinting and photographing of all domestic passengers rather than resolve the actual loophole in the terminal's design is way out of proportion.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 105):The only possible justification for this is the control of international connecting passengers, who have not actually entered the country, and therefore are not (or might not) be 'elligible' to travel on a domestic flight.

Geee, finally!!! This has been stated a number of times in this thread before.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 105):But what a heavyhanded solution, and it goes right back to one of my earlier posts, where I said that the Government and/or the Immigration Service should have told BAA not to allow the mixing of passengers who have not entered the country with those that are not leaving it. That really doesn't make any sense at all, and to require the fingerprinting and photographing of all domestic passengers rather than resolve the actual loophole in the terminal's design is way out of proportion.

Not a loophole in the design. It was purposely designed like this and approved by the government. There are other terminals in the UK with similar designs (LGW). The BAA are simply implementing measures that are set out by the Border and Immigration Agency. All domestic flights currently have some form of check, usually a picture taken at the security checkpoint and verified at the gates. This is simply a new measure which the BIA are implementing and T5 just happended to be the location choosen to start.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 106):This is simply a new measure which the BIA are implementing and T5 just happended to be the location choosen to start.

Sorry, but that is simply untrue. The BIA is not implementing any such measures.

The only requirement is that the airport satisfactorily establishes who needs to go through passport control and who does not, and ensures passengers are presented accordingly. The BIA cannot impose controls on domestic passengers.

not to forget the BILLLIONNS these private companies are making! all the intense lobbying behind this paranoia seeking to invade about everything in our everyday life, at our borders, on the streets, at work, even at our chirldren schools, at the supermaket. it's just everything people, things, movements, habits, all about our life is scanned, filed and compiled into computers between hands of commercial-political -in opinion it's the same- entities. what is their interest? what kind of society?

just to picture that i recently red an article talking about the big cash mister US president got for his campaign from that company that was selling the new computerised election machines to the state..yeah just an example of democracy. bravo!!!! and it's just a benign little example.

not to forget the BILLLIONNS these private companies are making! all the intense lobbying behind this paranoia seeking to invade about everything in our everyday life, at our borders, on the streets, at work, even at our chirldren schools, at the supermaket. it's just everything people, things, movements, habits, all about our life is scanned, filed and compiled into computers between hands of commercial-political -in opinion it's the same- entities. what is their interest? what kind of society?

just to picture that i recently red an article talking about the big cash mister US president got for his campaign from that company that was selling the new computerised election machines to the state..yeah just an example of democracy. bravo!!!! and it's just benign little example.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 105):
The only possible justification for this is the control of international connecting passengers, who have not actually entered the country, and therefore are not (or might not) be 'elligible' to travel on a domestic flight.

If there are international connecting passengers in the terminal that are not allowed to enter the UK (entering the UK via a domestic flight is what this is all designed to prevent, right?), how will they be stopped from simply walking out of the terminal?

Quoting Analog (Reply 110):If there are international connecting passengers in the terminal that are not allowed to enter the UK (entering the UK via a domestic flight is what this is all designed to prevent, right?), how will they be stopped from simply walking out of the terminal?

That's a very good question!

One can only imagine that once they are in the departure area, the only way 'out' is via an immigration control point. You would either have to show a valid passport/visa, or still be on the fingerprint & photo system, if for example you had decided for whatever reason not to board your domestic flight. Remember that as the entire departure area is beyond the immigration control, even for domestic flights, no-one will be able to just walk back out again...

Quoting VV701 (Reply 103):the British licence is issued when you pass the test and expires on the driver's 70th birthday

Anybody over the age of 17 can have one, it's just once you pass your test it is replaced with a red (as opposed to green) one that doesn't have the word 'provisional' on it. I know quite a few people who just use them just as id!

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 111):
One can only imagine that once they are in the departure area, the only way 'out' is via an immigration control point.

I thought immigration was done before entering the terminal (that has been asserted before in this thread)?

So how will people arriving from domestic flights (no ID required) be handled? What if someone flies domestic UK with a stop in LHR and then decides to leave the airport? Will they be forced to stay in the airport (no fingerprint on file)?

... presumably all routes into the departure lounge will be via outward passport controls, and all routes out of the departure lounge other than by plane will be via inward passport controls. That would make sense, in line with somewhere like AMS. Thus passengers on a domestic connection should be able to leave, as they'll be fingerprinted and photographed upon re-entry. These passengers will require fingerprinting if they are going to board a domestic flight, so it will have to be done at whichever point they enter the common departure lounge.

As it happens, I often carry my passport when I travel domestically out of habit, so I wonder if I can use that at T5 instead of being fingerprinted...? Would be much better, and indeed many might appreciate having the option (it will be quicker), but I'll find out for certain when I take part in the passengers trials in a few weeks' time.

Quoting CoolGuy (Reply 115): At some point we will no longer have passports and just use our fingerprints. The technology to do that is clearly here already.

If you get a hand injury you may lose your citizenship. It already happens in the US that people cannot get certain jobs if their fingerprints are not suitable for matching.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 114):... presumably all routes into the departure lounge will be via outward passport controls, and all routes out of the departure lounge other than by plane will be via inward passport controls. That would make sense, in line with somewhere like AMS. Thus passengers on a domestic connection should be able to leave, as they'll be fingerprinted and photographed upon re-entry. These passengers will require fingerprinting if they are going to board a domestic flight, so it will have to be done at whichever point they enter the common departure lounge.

All routes? What about arriving flights?

Will arriving domestic pax be fingerprinted while walking off the plane (otherwise how could they get out of the arrival/departure area)? Or will arriving domestic flights dump their pax outside of the terminal?

Will there be two layers of immigration for arriving international pax (upon leaving the aircraft to determine if they are allowed to transfer in the UK, and upon exiting the departure lounge to determine if they can enter the UK)?

Quoting Analog (Reply 116):Will arriving domestic pax be fingerprinted while walking off the plane (otherwise how could they get out of the arrival/departure area)? Or will arriving domestic flights dump their pax outside of the terminal?

You are assuming that arriving passengers are deposited directly into the departure lounge as if it were a transit lounge, but I very much doubt that will be the case. I can't find a detailed map of the terminal on the BAA website, but their description implies that arriving passengers are kept separate from the departure lounge as is the case in the other terminals at LHR, and will have to pass through a Connecting Passengers security and passport control check before being allowed to enter the departure lounge.

Quoting CoolGuy (Reply 115):At some point we will no longer have passports and just use our fingerprints. The technology to do that is clearly here already.

Fingerprint scanning alone doesn't scale particularly well, particularly if speed is needed. If a scanner is looking for only one fingerprint (like on a computer where there's only one owner) it works ok because it rejects everything as not a match.

If you have a system where a key is entered first and then you're comparing that key to a fingerprint on file, that's basically a form of the above. It too works ok.

But a system which could figure out identity out of a large pool of fingerprints? From what I recall...it doesn't work well over 10,000 fingerprints (one fingerprint captured. More fingerprints help but not up to the levels needed.) (A lot of work goes into law enforcement fingerprint matching...it takes quite some time and even then...they typically are ruling out large quantities of the pool, and this in spite of the technology we have.)

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 117):arriving passengers are kept separate from the departure lounge as is the case in the other terminals at LHR, and will have to pass through a Connecting Passengers security and passport control check before being allowed to enter the departure lounge.

So every domestic connection requires exiting the secure area, getting fingerprinted, and going through security again? Oh joy. That must be great for min connection times.

Also, international xfer pax can't be left outside of the terminal without getting rid of the transit w/o visa rules. How will (and is) this done? How will LHR prevent those allowed to xfer, but not enter the UK, from leaving the departure lounge?

Quoting Analog (Reply 119):So every domestic connection requires exiting the secure area, getting fingerprinted, and going through security again? Oh joy. That must be great for min connection times.

Also, international xfer pax can't be left outside of the terminal without getting rid of the transit w/o visa rules. How will (and is) this done? How will LHR prevent those allowed to xfer, but not enter the UK, from leaving the departure lounge?

Why is this so difficult to understand????

There is no change in process for passengers, except those travelling on domestic flights, who in addition to having a picture taken, as done presently, will undergo biometric scan.

The connections process will not change and no connecting passengers leave the terminal. They all go through a connections area as they do now, while those landing in London do through the immigration channels. If you are going from an international flight to a domestic flight, then the biometrics capture will be undertaken in the connections area, before passengers reach the departures lounge.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 120):
The connections process will not change and no connecting passengers leave the terminal. They all go through a connections area as they do now, while those landing in London do through the immigration channels. If you are going from an international flight to a domestic flight, then the biometrics capture will be undertaken in the connections area, before passengers reach the departures lounge.

So what's to prevent transit without visa passengers from leaving the departure lounge (now & later), or are you not allowed to leave the departure lounge without getting on an aircraft? I don't fly to Europe often, so I do not understand.

Quoting Analog (Reply 121):I don't fly to Europe often, so I do not understand.

It's nothing to do with 'Europe'. It's the same everywhere. If you are in the international departure area of say, T1 at JFK, having passed through passport control and security, how exactly are you going to just walk back out into the USA again...? The moment you enter the international departure area of any airport in any country, you have technically left that country, and in order to enter that country again you will have to pass back through passport control. What is so confusing about that...?

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 122):It's nothing to do with 'Europe'. It's the same everywhere. If you are in the international departure area of say, T1 at JFK, having passed through passport control and security, how exactly are you going to just walk back out into the USA again...? The moment you enter the international departure area of any airport in any country, you have technically left that country, and in order to enter that country again you will have to pass back through passport control. What is so confusing about that...?

You're mistaken about how it is in the US. There is no exit control (outside of collecting the I-94). You go through the same controls as domestic passengers. You are free to leave the terminal at any time until you get on the aircraft, whether the flight is domestic or international.

My question is about arriving international pax connecting to departing international flights. Since all departing passengers, domestic and international, are mixed, how does one prevent the connecting international passengers (from international to international) from leaving the terminal? The only way that I can see this being done is by not allowing anyone to leave the terminal without first checking passports or recorded fingerprints.

Quoting Analog (Reply 123):You're mistaken about how it is in the US. There is no exit control (outside of collecting the I-94). You go through the same controls as domestic passengers. You are free to leave the terminal at any time until you get on the aircraft, whether the flight is domestic or international.

My question is about arriving international pax connecting to departing international flights. Since all departing passengers, domestic and international, are mixed, how does one prevent the connecting international passengers (from international to international) from leaving the terminal? The only way that I can see this being done is by not allowing anyone to leave the terminal without first checking passports or recorded fingerprints.

I'd be surprised if it really was that easy to enter the US.....what you've basically said is that once in the departures area of a US airport, anyone can essentially walk out and back into the US, unknown to authorities, as there are no checks, possibly then entering illegally and hiding away in the US.

In the UK....and I believe the EU and most other countries, anyone in the departures lounge, who then wishes to leave and enter the country, has to pass through immigration (or some other security check, if domestic). The departures area is considered a secure area and as such shouldn't just allow anyone to simply enter and leave at while. At LHR, the only passenger exits from the departures lounge is either by boarding a flight or through immigration.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 124):what you've basically said is that once in the departures area of a US airport, anyone can essentially walk out and back into the US, unknown to authorities, as there are no checks, possibly then entering illegally and hiding away in the US.

I'm at a loss understanding how this is a problem. If an individual is intending to stay illegally in the US, I don't see why they would find themselves going into an international terminal of an airport.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 124):At LHR, the only passenger exits from the departures lounge is either by boarding a flight or through immigration.

So if a passenger departing the UK or flying domestically decides to leave T5, they cannot without going through immigration?

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 126):Oh, so it's not possible to transit through MIA, LAX or JFK without entering the USA, then...? That I didn't know.

Nope. Must "enter" the US. It's pretty stupid; airports with secure transit areas cannot use them for their real purpose (transit w/o visa). Every person from/citizen of Latin America transiting MIA, IAH, DFW, etc. must spend a day (and $100) visiting the US embassy to get a visa.

There is some sort of transit lounge at LAX for NZ, but all AKL-LAX-LHR (and back) pax must clear immigration.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 124):
I'd be surprised if it really was that easy to enter the US.....what you've basically said is that once in the departures area of a US airport, anyone can essentially walk out and back into the US, unknown to authorities, as there are no checks, possibly then entering illegally and hiding away in the US.

To get into the departure area you have to legally enter the US. Any potential "illegal" would be turned back at immigration. People on VWP or visitor visas could enter and overstay. There's really no way to avoid that problem, except by implanting tracking chips in all non-residents (I probably shouldn't give DHS any ideas).

Quoting Analog (Reply 64):More importantly, if arriving pax are mixed, how does HM Customs know who to search?

Arriving passengers are NOT being mixed. You'll still have to go through the transit checks that you go through now. What's happening is that there will be ONE common area for domestic UK passengers and international departing passengers. Currently in T1, domestic/Ireland flights go out of one area, everyone else out of another. That will no longer be the case. The purpose of the fingerprints is to ensure that the person checking in is the same person boarding the flight.

I don't agree with it but here's what I think the reasoning is.

Two people check in at T5 both named John Smith. John Smith 1 is checking in for a flight to MAN, John Smith 2 to New York. They both go through security and then once in the departure area, John Smith 1 and 2 swap boarding passes. Now, John Smith 1 is travelling to New York and John Smith 2 to MAN, but JS 1 is now travelling on JS 2's travel information (since it would have been entered into the computer). No one at the gate will know since they only verify the name, not the passport number or date of birth. Now what is JS 1 had an unsavoury past or was on the US gov'ts no fly list? He's now got on a plane that he's not supposed to be on and the transporter (obviously, BA in this case and possibly BAA for having designed a departure lounge that could facilitate this sort of behaviour) will be at fault despite having done everything correctly on their end.

So, while I'm nervous about giving up fingerprints, I can see the reasoning behind it. It's either that or having to do a complete and thorough passport check of everyone on every international flight. That would slow things down much more than scanning in a fingerprint. I would be happy if the fingerprint were connected with a flight and the info was deleted after the flight was entered as having departed.

Quoting LH423 (Reply 128):I don't agree with it but here's what I think the reasoning is.

..except that I expect passports still to be checked at departure gates for international flights, possibly even by US immigration officials for flights to USA, so in your example there would be no danger of the wrong John Smith getting on the plane to the US (or any other international destination), unless both passengers looked pretty much the same. In any case, as the fingerprinting only applies to domestic departures, it will add nothing to the security of the international departure in your scenario.

No, the only scenario that it might address directly from a security point of view would be an international-to-international connecting passenger with no right to enter the UK then trying to get onto a domestic flight (as there will be no immigration control at the other end of that flight).

It would still be so much easier to require all domestic passengers, regardless of the airline, airport or route, to carry a recognised form of photo-id as is normal in so many other countries. If airlines like U2 and FR can insist on it, I really don't see why BA and BD (and everyone else) cannot be required to do so as well.

Yes they are, otherwise how do they get onto departing international flights?

Nobody seems to have addressed by question about international (arrive & depart) transit passengers.

1. They arrive and go through immigration to verify that they can transit w/o visa. This does not mean they are allowed to enter the UK.
2. They are dumped into the MIXED departure area with domestic passengers.
3. They walk out of the departure area. If they cannot do this, how can domestic departing pax do this (say if they decide not to fly)?

Quoting LH423 (Reply 128):Now what is JS 1 had an unsavoury past or was on the US gov'ts no fly list?

Then it's BA's fault for not verifying his credentials. The problem you describe can be solved with taking fingerprints of departing international pax only. Why does taking JS1's fingerprint help at all? The whole fingerprint thing does not verify that the pax actually boards with a passport (could be dumped before boarding).

This brings up the real reason: BA (not BAA) wants to save time (i.e. money) by not having to verify that the passengers board with a valid passport.

Sorry, but I thought I had said above that anyone wishing to leave the departure area without flying would presumably have to pass through inward passport control - this must be the case, as the departure lounge is beyond UK passport control.

Thus even domestic passengers who do not wish to travel will have to do the same, which will not be a problem as they will be 'recognized' by the fingerprint & photograph system in lieu of a passport.

How many more times would you like me to write this before you realise that it must indeed be the case?

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 132):
Thus even domestic passengers who do not wish to travel will have to do the same, which will not be a problem as they will be 'recognized' by the fingerprint & photograph system in lieu of a passport.

How many more times would you like me to write this before you realise that it must indeed be the case?

About 3 more will do it.

The part about checking fingerprints on leaving the departure area it what makes the difference. At least this reduces the chance of a TSA-style terminal-dump ever happening there, as you can't dump the pax outside. I wonder what happens if a fire alarm goes off?

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 131):BA will still undertake 100% passport/photo id checks on international flights, so there is no change....passengers still have to board with a valid passport or photo id where applicable.

They will do it at the gate? That seems to me the only way to guarantee that the boarding passenger actually is carrying the needed documents. Doing it at checkin and verifying ID through fingerprint is not enough, since passengers can dump or lose their passports in the terminal. Why not just have an optical passport reader at the gate to verify that it matches the one presented at checkin? That would be a more effective and elegant solution to this problem.

Quoting Analog (Reply 130):Yes they are, otherwise how do they get onto departing international flights?

If you've ever been to LHR, you arrive on the arrivals level and before you can get to the departures level you have to pass through a security check and a brief transit inspection before you can proceed to the departure level. But, if you're arriving internationally connecting to a domestic UK flight you go through a complete UK entry inspection before being able to enter the domestic side of Terminal 1 (Terminal 4 has no domestic UK flights). I imagine once Terminal 5 opens, passengers arriving from international connecting to domestic will have to be processed thoroughly before connecting to a domestic flight. I'm not quite sure how it'll work since it seems someone could say they're just connecting to Paris or Moscow but in reality are going to Edinburgh and therefore aren't fully processed as they should be. Maybe someone who's closer to the T5 project can answer that. But, as it stands now, there is no mixing of domestic and international passengers since though arriving internationally have been processed by UK immigration.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 129):..except that I expect passports still to be checked at departure gates for international flights, possibly even by US immigration officials for flights to USA, so in your example there would be no danger of the wrong John Smith getting on the plane to the US (or any other international destination), unless both passengers looked pretty much the same.

Again, they have the same name. They're only swapping boarding passes. Their photo ID will remain theirs, with their photo. So, there is a danger. Also, fraudulent passports are more frequent than you might think. So, it's very easy that two people with MATCHING NAMES on their IDs swap boarding cards so that Passenger 1 travelling to ABC swaps his ABC boarding card with passenger 2 (who has the same name) and his XYZ boarding pass. So Pax 1 still has his ID and the gate agents only look at the photo, the name, and the flight number/date. So, as long as the name and photo match (which they would), he would get through the gate check even though it's not his passport info in the computer.

I know it's far-fetched and I'm sure I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it's possible. That's why I think there should be some control on one set of flights (either domestic or international) but not the other. It happens in Boston too. NWA departs out of the international terminal so someone could check in at Virgin Atlantic then swap boarding cards with someone who checked in at NWA to MSP because they'll have the same name on the boarding card as on their passport/driver's licence.

Hmmm, either that or be led out onto the apron. Just hope it's not raining...

Quoting LH423 (Reply 134):Again, they have the same name. They're only swapping boarding passes. Their photo ID will remain theirs, with their photo. So, there is a danger. Also, fraudulent passports are more frequent than you might think.

Well, you will only cover this scenario if all passengers are biometrically recorded at passport control, & biometrically verified at all departur gates. But that won't be happening, so we are no better off. For this situation, It's as good as useless only doing one half of the check (i.e. only domestic), because the domestic flight could be late enough, or even delayed, such that the unverified Mr Smith is already in the air and ready to do whatever he might be planning to do, by the time his doppleganger is apprehended, and the alarm raised.

Again, this points to inward immigration control as being the primary reason for these (biometric) checks.

Riv'

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.